View Full Version : Cleaned Summar captures girls on the town.
Sanders McNew
10-14-2007, 20:53
So, a childhood friend and her daughter
appeared in Manhattan this weekend.
It seemed as good an excuse as any to
pull out the IIIa and see what the Summar
could do wide-open on the mean streets
of Manhattan:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2309/1573478205_c4bf660b8d_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2224/1573478195_d1b417cdf3_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2314/1573478191_d37da65468_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2121/1573478181_60860da37d_o.jpg
I hope you all enjoy them.
Sanders
triplefinger
10-14-2007, 20:54
it's a good piece of glass, i sold one a while back... regrets.
Great work, Sanders! I love the "mirror-image" effect of their scarves. They look like a couple of characters!
LeicaTom
10-14-2007, 21:54
Great situation to test out such an old lens, were these shot "wide open"? Great performance from a lens that`s like 70+ years old.....
I just sold my "second" Summar without trying one yet - first one was on my "Pearl Harbor" Leica IIIC and another one on a matching numbers Leica III that`s coming this week, I sell the lenses before the cameras even get here....seems there`s a rush on Summar`s now
I think NEXT one I get I`m going to TRY it out I really like the signature and want to use it to shoot some 1930`s styled artistic nude studies
The ladies look like they were having fun, I have yet to get up NYC way to work sometime
Keep on shooting with that old gear Bravo!
Tom
Great pics Sanders ... what film and scanning?
I also love the way your images have the sprocket holes ... how do you do that 'cause it looks great! :)
Great shots of fine ladies. I wish I could find a Summar.
Bill
matt fury
10-14-2007, 22:43
Great shots! I love the doorman looking to see what's up.
MichaelHarris
10-14-2007, 23:23
Great shots, I may have to keep my Summar. I was just about to sell it.
john neal
10-14-2007, 23:54
Sanders - more great shots, just love the bokeh. maybe i should get a Summar again?
Incidentally, do you actually know any "plain" women? (just jealous)
Keep those great shots coming!
Sanders McNew
10-14-2007, 23:58
Great shots, I may have to keep my Summar. I was just about to sell it.
Talk to Bill58 above you -- he's looking for a Summar. :-)
Sanders McNew
10-15-2007, 00:00
Great situation to test out such an old lens, were these shot "wide open"? Great performance from a lens that`s like 70+ years old.....
Tom, yes, these were 1/100 at f/2. Sherry Krauter
revived this lens from the dead -- fantastic work on
her part, the lens glass looks near-new.
Sanders
Sanders McNew
10-15-2007, 00:01
Great pics Sanders ... what film and scanning? I also love the way your images have the sprocket holes ... how do you do that 'cause it looks great! :)
Keith, it is Foma 200, exposed at EI 80 and processed in Rodinal. The sprocket holes are the result of not using Leitz film canisters -- today's canisters are shorter and slip down while shooting the roll.
Sanders
Sanders McNew
10-15-2007, 00:03
Incidentally, do you actually know any "plain" women?
John, they're all plain. It's the Summar. :cool:
Sanders
Absolutely beautiful! The girls and the captures. There is something so timeless in mother/daughter and father/son images. So much depth, history and stories yet to be told...
They will cherish those pics forever.
This is everything I enjoy about the craft.
Cheers,
John
Forgive me for the heresy. But I think the bokeh around any circular highlights isn't a million miles from a 40mm CV Nokton wide open.
Or is it just me?
John
john neal
10-15-2007, 00:36
John, they're all plain. It's the Summar. :cool:
Sanders
Sanders - I somehow think your guiding hand has something to do with the result ;)
burninfilm
10-15-2007, 00:40
Wow. I'm pleasantly surprised that these were your results with the lens at f2.0... They seem much better than what I've heard/read. I've been browsing around for a decent IIIa with an Elmar or Summitar, while somewhat trying to avoid the Summar. It seems that when properly brought back working condition, the Summar isn't a bad lens at all. Thanks for posting these, along with your helpful information. A very interesting thread!
Sanders McNew
10-15-2007, 00:57
Wow. I'm pleasantly surprised that these were your results with the lens at f2.0... They seem much better than what I've heard/read.
I gather their performance varies widely with condition. This one is an early uncoated Summar, freshly cleaned of haze, and no visible scratches. I posted some photographs I shot last week with the same lens, also shot wide-open, in this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48220
So far, I like this lens a lot.
Sanders
burninfilm
10-15-2007, 01:19
Thanks for your informative reply, and for the links to your other posts. Who knows, maybe I'll find a IIIa and a good clean Summar down the road sometime. I chuckled a bit after seeing the other photos you shot with this Summar, as they do show very difinitely the flare-prone characteristics of this lens (of course, a brightly lit beach scene is a pretty extreme test for a vintage uncoated lens). Did you do anything to enhance the apparent flare in the beach shots of your wife? Or are those shots straight scans from the negatives? They do have a look to them, don't they?
I'm sure that condition does play a major role in the performance of a Summar. Most of the Summars I see on Eb*y are hazed or heavily scratched. So, there are 70-80 years of age related variables which affect every Summar made, and some didn't survive as well as others. Fortunately, yours came out pretty well, and you were able to provide us with some nice images and proof that the Summar can perform very nicely.
Again, thanks for the post.
I'm amazed! Great lens..and great Ladies too!
Great shots, Sanders.
I know how well a Summar can perform.
david werbeloff
10-15-2007, 18:29
Sanders, Great photographs, great lens! (I love my 1938 sample) I think you have the Muse perched on your shoulder. Keep up the good work!
David
Great to see a Summar put to good use. I love mine, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why they have a poor rep.
The hell with the technicalities, I find there an interesting triangular relationship between the mother, the daughter and the photographer.
The mother looks much more an attractive-shining subject than the daughter, as if the presence of the daughter and/or her aquitance with the photographer, gave her a legitimate photo-op. Amidst the street ! And the daughter seems to perceive it !
Cheers,
Ruben
Kindly excuss my non-Leica talk. You guys are a serious case.
Finally figured out who 'mom' reminds me of: Alex from the 'Sisters' show.
Ruben: At least throw SOMETHING Leitz in there, geez. A viewfinder if nothing else...
For something Leitz to say you have tons and tons at RFF. But I can say someting NICE, my truth.
Who like us know that pictures can lie without limits ! Non standing that, this mini photo story about a wonderfull meeting leaves me dying for meeting an old friend from my school days. I die to have been able in such imaginary situation to be able to produce such kind of wonderful images, since knowing myself I would talk and talk at such event. I die that the female hypothetical friend will be so open and shining.
The last thing I would worry about would be the type of lens or camera at hand.
But, respected Sanders, you know the thrue story so I cannot judge you at all. But I can enjoy the beautifull picture story you created, as my absolute prerogative.
Cheers,
Ruben
personally, i think those of you with good persuasion technique, should persuade mr. mcnew to share some of his scanning technique..
totally unable to persuade anyone of anything, i'll just say keep them coming sanders. you're in a league of your own around here. i stalk your flickr stream, and your input in these threads lifts a spirit ,-)
Sanders McNew
10-17-2007, 14:25
You all really know how to embarrass a guy.
Scanning ... is simple. I use an Epson 4990
flatbed @ 4800 ppi (16 bits), controlled with
the Epson scanning software that came with
it, and I make most of my tone corrections
in the scanner before scanning. The 4990
has a lot of DOF so I just lay the negatives
flat on the glass, emulsion-side down (to
prevent Newton rings), and then flip the scan
in Photoshop so that it is oriented correctly.
that way I am able to scan full-frame and
not lose the edges to the negative carrier.
If you have particular questions, fire away
and I will do my best to answer them.
Sanders
Thanks for the scanning tip. I have a 4490, will have to see if I can do the same and get decent results. Have a set of caffenol-developed TriX negs I've been flattening out under a pile of books for a week, should be ripe by now. :)
Sanders McNew
10-17-2007, 15:13
Thanks for the scanning tip. I have a 4490, will have to see if I can do the same and get decent results. Have a set of caffenol-developed TriX negs I've been flattening out under a pile of books for a week, should be ripe by now. :)
I keep the negatives flat by laying stuff on top of the
negatives, on either side of the frame I am scanning.
"Stuff" usually being a 4x5-inch square of anti-newton-
ring glass on one side and a 6-inch ruler on the other,
but any flat thing of reasonable weight will do. (Coins
work.) When scanning a frame at the end, I just put the
anti-newton-ring glass piece on top of the frame and
scan through it. (I don't do that every time because
the glass adds two more surfaces with lint and dust,
so I try not to scan through the glass unless absolutely
necessary.)
Great info on the scanner, Sanders, I've used a 4490 for B&W and been happy too.
My question-how spontaneous was the shoot? Did you direct the action, the clothing? Just curious as to how you consistently get such exciting results. I mean, my life isn't boring, but..
KoNickon
10-17-2007, 16:21
I note that the sprocket holes intrude into the exposures slightly -- I guess that's a potential hazard with the Barnacks?
Great pictures, by the way -- but I'd say they're a little overdressed. I was in NYC myself on Saturday and it was not leather jacket and scarf weather.
You all really know how to embarrass a guy.
...
If you have particular questions, fire away
and I will do my best to answer them.
Sanders
Great shots, Sanders. Thanks for sharing them. I love the tones on the leather. I'd appreciate some details on your processing with Rodinal.
I keep the negatives flat by laying stuff on top of the
negatives, on either side of the frame I am scanning.
"Stuff" usually being a 4x5-inch square of anti-newton-
ring glass on one side and a 6-inch ruler on the other,
but any flat thing of reasonable weight will do. (Coins
work.) When scanning a frame at the end, I just put the
anti-newton-ring glass piece on top of the frame and
scan through it. (I don't do that every time because
the glass adds two more surfaces with lint and dust,
so I try not to scan through the glass unless absolutely
necessary.)
Doh, that is just too damn obvious for me to have thought about. Appreciate the info and will apply it on my next scan. Really curious to see the Caffenol results, the negs look pretty decent...
Sanders McNew
10-17-2007, 19:47
My question-how spontaneous was the shoot? Did you direct the action, the clothing? Just curious as to how you consistently get such exciting results. I mean, my life isn't boring, but..
Great pictures, by the way -- but I'd say they're a little overdressed. I was in NYC myself on Saturday and it was not leather jacket and scarf weather.
These shots were completely impromptu. They had arrived
in their hotel a few hours earlier (from NC, which explains
why, to them, it felt like jacket weather) and I came by to
collect them with the Leica in hand. We shot a roll in front
of the hotel on 44th Street in about 3-4 minutes. Apart
from positioning them on the street to keep them both on
the focal plane, I did not direct them.
I laughed at the "overdressed" remark because the mom
did agree to participate in my nude portrait series (much to
her daughter's dismay). So, later in the evening, I stood her
in front of my Rolleiflexes and took these portraits. CAUTION:
Do not click on the links if nudity offends:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/1569000393/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/1569445965/
I'd appreciate some details on your processing with Rodinal.
I'm exposing Foma 200 at EI 80 and processing in a 1:50
Rodinal solution for 8-9 minutes @ 68F. That's for the 35mm
Leica photos in this thread -- I always use Tri-X when shooting
roll and sheet film.
Sanders
I laughed at the "overdressed" remark because the mom
did agree to participate in my nude portrait series (much to
her daughter's dismay). So, later in the evening, I stood her
in front of my Rolleiflexes and took these portraits.
Sensei, when can I begin training........
I laughed at the "overdressed" remark because the mom
did agree to participate in my nude portrait series (much to
her daughter's dismay).
Yeah, I would have loved to have seen the daughter's "eye roll" on that!
You all really know how to embarrass a guy.
Scanning ... is simple. I use an Epson 4990
flatbed @ 4800 ppi (16 bits), controlled with
the Epson scanning software that came with
it, and I make most of my tone corrections
in the scanner before scanning. The 4990
has a lot of DOF so I just lay the negatives
flat on the glass, emulsion-side down (to
prevent Newton rings), and then flip the scan
in Photoshop so that it is oriented correctly.
that way I am able to scan full-frame and
not lose the edges to the negative carrier.
Sanders
Great pictures Sanders, you get the best out of your Summar.
Thanks for the tip too; I'm going to try that today :)
Best,
marc
PS: I really like the second portrait (non nude) ... and I agree with Ruben about Susan ...
You all really know how to embarrass a guy.
Scanning ... is simple. I use an Epson 4990
flatbed @ 4800 ppi (16 bits), controlled with
the Epson scanning software that came with
it, and I make most of my tone corrections
in the scanner before scanning. The 4990
has a lot of DOF so I just lay the negatives
flat on the glass, emulsion-side down (to
prevent Newton rings), and then flip the scan
in Photoshop so that it is oriented correctly.
that way I am able to scan full-frame and
not lose the edges to the negative carrier.
If you have particular questions, fire away
and I will do my best to answer them.
Sanders
Thanks a lot for this tip Sanders ! I never thought about the DOF of a flat-bed scanner, will try this later today.
As already mentioned, your photos are really a class of its own here.
rick oleson
10-18-2007, 18:59
Great pics Sanders ... what film and scanning?
I also love the way your images have the sprocket holes ... how do you do that 'cause it looks great! :)
I've never had that happen with a Leica, but all of my Contax rangefinders do it.
Sanders,
I'm curious about your scanning technique ... negatives by nature are curly little devils and sitting them on the glass it would seem to me that little of the neg will be at the plane of the glass surface and with the scanner lid down there will be plenty of space to accommodate the curl with the gap left by not having the holders in there ... well it would be that way with my 700. Is the 4990 different in it's design or do you have some way of getting your negs to lie very flat?
Does this make sense? :)
I think I'm going to do some experimenting with my scanner tonight!
Keith, the scanner lid should press the negs flat against the bottom glass.
I think using his suggestion of having something to hold either side of the frame down would alleviate most of the scanning issues that are due to curling. Was meaning to try it tonight but got sidetracked a bit so it'll have to wait until the weekend.
Keith, the scanner lid should press the negs flat against the bottom glass.
That isn't the case for my 4490, as the lightbox diffuser doesn't lay flat against the glass so there's a fair amount of room for neg flexing.
Frank ... it would do this in reflective mode but with the carriers removed there is a hell of a space in there with the lid firmly down. I can think of some solutions that would involve fabricating something. A piece of newton glass over the top of the negs would work I would imagine ... the weight should hold them flat down on the surface. :)
rick oleson
10-18-2007, 19:38
I have an Epson 3200, which I think is mechanically similar to the newer Epsons. There is a large gap (maybe 8-10mm high) between the glass and the lid, so nothing will press anything against the glass. On the other hand, the plane of focus is not at the glass, but 1mm above it so that the best focus is at the film holder frames and a slight sacrifice is made for scanning documents. Perhaps the curl of the film got lucky and lifted the working area 1mm off the glass?
Sanders McNew
10-18-2007, 20:34
Sanders,
I'm curious about your scanning technique ... negatives by nature are curly little devils and sitting them on the glass it would seem to me that little of the neg will be at the plane of the glass surface and with the scanner lid down there will be plenty of space to accommodate the curl with the gap left by not having the holders in there ... well it would be that way with my 700. Is the 4990 different in it's design or do you have some way of getting your negs to lie very flat?
Does this make sense? :)
I think I'm going to do some experimenting with my scanner tonight!
I use only films that handle well -- TXP in sheets, Tri-X
400 in roll film, and Foma 200 in 35mm. All of these
films lay fairly flat. I can flatten them completely with
rulers, coins and whatnot. Coins on the corners of 5x7
TXP negatives suffice. With other formats, I weight down
the pieces adjacent to the frame I am scanning.
On the odd occasion I've shot a curly film like Efke, I
flatten the strip by laying a sheet of anti-Newton-ring
glass on top of the strip and scanning through the glass.
The weight of the glass should suffice, but you can add
more weight on top of the glass if the glass by itself isn't
enough.
It is said that the optimal focal point of the Epson flatbeds
is 1 mm above the glass. In my experience with the 3200
and 4990, you lose nothing of substance by scanning with
the negative flat against the glass -- the DOF forgives the
difference.
I've scanned thousands of B+W negatives like this without
a problem. I am sure the tech guys can give a zillion
reasons why this is a bad way to scan, but it works for me.
Sanders
sienarot
10-18-2007, 23:23
Wow, those photos look great. You just reminded me why I've been on the look out for a 50mm Summar...
A little OT, but how can you get away w/ calling them "girls"? I thought NY fems rejected that term about 20 years ago (hahahahha).
Sanders, Great shots... again!! I'm amazed at the quality of the scans. I'd imagined a dedicated neg scanner (Nikon?) would've been necessary for this quality. I was planning to buy the Nikon Coolscan LS-V, despite it's limited to 35 mm. Now that I take a good look at your photos I'm not so sure the Epson wouldn't work. Does it come with software that rids artifacts (digital ice)?
SolaresLarrave
10-19-2007, 00:00
I really like the impromptu portraits. These women have some panache and flair! :) Good job, Sanders!
Tuolumne
10-19-2007, 09:35
Sanders, Great shots... again!! I'm amazed at the quality of the scans. I'd imagined a dedicated neg scanner (Nikon?) would've been necessary for this quality. I was planning to buy the Nikon Coolscan LS-V, despite it's limited to 35 mm. Now that I take a good look at your photos I'm not so sure the Epson wouldn't work. Does it come with software that rids artifacts (digital ice)?
I have the 4990 and Yes, it comes with Digital Ice. It's best not to have to use it because it will turn a 3 minute scan without Ice into a 20 minute scan with Ice.
/T
Pherdinand
10-19-2007, 10:23
Lovely shots.
Pherdinand
10-19-2007, 10:33
Sanders, your portfolio is great. I subscribed right now to flickr just to be able to see it and i'm not sorry that i did.
I also niticed Jim Adams "your friend" there.
I love the "polaroid" series of that guy, on PN.
Sanders McNew
10-19-2007, 10:37
A little OT, but how can you get away w/ calling them "girls"? I thought NY fems rejected that term about 20 years ago (hahahahha).
My tongue was lodged firmly in my cheek
-- a reference to their playful nature in front
of the camera. They are most definitely
women. Had they been men, I would have
titled it "boys on the town" for the same reason.
No disresepect intended, I swear.
Sanders McNew
10-19-2007, 10:43
Sanders, Great shots... again!! I'm amazed at the quality of the scans. I'd imagined a dedicated neg scanner (Nikon?) would've been necessary for this quality. I was planning to buy the Nikon Coolscan LS-V, despite it's limited to 35 mm. Now that I take a good look at your photos I'm not so sure the Epson wouldn't work. Does it come with software that rids artifacts (digital ice)?
Huub, I think it does, but I never use it. I'm always afraid the
machine will blot out things that are meant to be there, that it
thinks are dust motes. So I try to keep the scanner glass
clear, and clean them up in PS afterward.
I am sure there are reasons to get a better scanner -- maybe
if I wanted to print 20x30 inches on an inkjet printer, then it
would matter. But I scan for the internet only, as I am printing
in the darkroom, and for my purposes the flatbed provides
more than ample detail.
I once had the Microtek 120tf dedicated MF film scanner. I
sold it and went back to the flatbed because I found the
output too grainy for my tastes. The Epson flatbed gave
creamier skintones. As any Summar shooter will tell you:
Sharper is not always better. :D
Sanders
Sanders McNew
10-19-2007, 10:52
Sanders, your portfolio is great. I subscribed right now to flickr just to be able to see it and i'm not sorry that i did.
I also niticed Jim Adams "your friend" there.
I love the "polaroid" series of that guy, on PN.
Pherdinand, thank you for the compliment. Yes, I consider Jim
Adams my friend, and I owe him a huge and unrepayable debt
of gratitude. It was Jim who introduced me to my wife Melanie
who, in addition to all the wonderful things that makes her
the great joy of my life, is an incredible artist and photographer
in her own right -- the benefit being, of course, that she shoos
me into the darkroom when I am avoiding it, when most
husbands have to fight for darkroom time. And Melanie is
my most reliable critic -- she deserves the credit for much of
what I get right as a photographer.
But for Jim, there would be no Melanie in my life. So, yes,
Jim Adams is my friend, and I am forever in his debt.
Sanders
As a point of interest I tried scanning a negative last night with the 'Sanders Method' ... bloody disaster! :p
Laid the negative imulsion side down on the glass and away I went ... probably the worst scan I have ever done ... it was a mile out of focus and had a severe lack of tonality.
Oh well! :D
John Shriver
10-23-2007, 11:34
There is apparently sample variation on how far above the glass each Epson scanner focuses.
CarlRadford
10-23-2007, 12:00
real nice Sanders - a good little gun is sometimes as good a a big one, even in the USA - tongue firmly in cheek :)
Sanders McNew
10-23-2007, 13:44
real nice Sanders - a good little gun is sometimes as good a a big one, even in the USA - tongue firmly in cheek :)
Carl! You found me!! I went into hiding on the other
forum and ... um ... ended up over here on RFF ... a
different neighborhood and I try to hide my Rolleiflex
habits over here. (We won't even think of mentioning
The Big Guns here in polite RFF company.)
How are you?
CarlRadford
10-23-2007, 13:58
Well thanks - just waiting for an M7 or Ikon to arrive on the scene - first venture into this was with a G2 and hankering for getting back to the people. Wetplate notwithstanding of course :) Glad to see your gift is multi platform but then I'd rarther the eye than any amount of kit - Leica or not :)
Sanders McNew
10-23-2007, 14:16
Well thanks - just waiting for an M7 or Ikon to arrive on the scene - first venture into this was with a G2 and hankering for getting back to the people. Wetplate notwithstanding of course :) Glad to see your gift is multi platform but then I'd rarther the eye than any amount of kit - Leica or not :)
Carl, I went over to B+H last weekend to fondle an
M2 and after shooting a II and a IIIa I have to tell
you, those M-series Leicas are HUGE! Check out
the screwmounts before committing to an M model.
Ha-I found the M3 to be ENORMOUS! Not as big as my C330, though..
Ha-I found the M3 to be ENORMOUS! Not as big as my C330, though..
Few things are. :)
Sanders - I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll ask you to start a new one, if you're willing.
I really enjoy your 4X5 work and your LTM work. You are a master at both. Light is light, composition is composition, etc. But, style of work can be different. How about kicking off a thread with your thoughts and experiences on styles of work with LF & LTM ... tripods/ handheld... looking through the viewfinder/looking beside the camera... fast/slow... few shots/ many shots...studied/ spontaneous... taking/ making... effect on sitters of big camera/ little camera...etc., etc.?
KenD
NickTrop
10-23-2007, 18:58
Great to see a Summar put to good use. I love mine, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why they have a poor rep.
Ditto... One of the bokeh kings in my collection. Unique signature. These, however, are much nicer wide open that anything I've ever taken with my Summar. Great pics.
IGMeanwell
10-23-2007, 20:21
Sanders,
The Summar seems to be a lens made for portraits, I love its signature and when I do eventually dive into Leica... that will be one of the first lenses I own; (its look is a lot like my Rokkor MC 58mm 1.2, except much smaller and lighter)
Anyways, regarding your scanning I have the Epson 4990 I also scan at 4800 DPI, but I just use the stock film holders that came with the scanner (for both MF and 35mm)... its a great scanner though dust is hard to control without some compressed air :p
Your Rollei portraits are something else; unbelievably revealing and I love how you seem to get great variation despite similar backgrounds/lighting
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.